My most recent books are the Leader's Guide to Radical Management (2010), The Leader's Guide to Storytelling (2nd ed, 2011) and The Secret Language of Leadership (2007). I consult with organizations around the world on leadership, innovation, management and business narrative. At the World Bank, I held many management positions, including director of knowledge management (1996-2000). I am currently a director of the Scrum Alliance, an Amazon Affiliate and a fellow of the Lean Software Society. You can follow me on Twitter at @stevedenning. My website is at www.stevedenning.com.

Stoos: Facilitating A Tipping Point For Organizations

For a day and a half in January 2012, twenty-one thought leaders from four continents gathered in a ski resort at Stoos in Switzerland to discuss what could be done to accelerate the transformation of organizations and their management. The idea was to figure out how organizations could become more profitable for the organizations and their shareholders, as well as being better for those doing the work and better for those for whom the work is being done. The tipping point isn’t about replacing capitalism with socialism: it’s about reinventing organizations so that they become more productive for shareholders, more inspiring for workers and more delightful for customers.

The idea that a group of people who had never met before as a group talking together for a day and a half could make progress on such an immense problem and begin a global movement that would facilitate a tipping point and change the way organizations are run is on the face of it absurd. But we were encouraged by Margaret Mead’s dictum: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

In brief, the outcome of the gathering at Stoos, which is available on the group’s website, www.StoosNetwork.org, is as follows:

The group moved towards a common understanding of what the eventual outcome needs to be—organizations that are learning networks of diverse individuals that create value.

The group agreed to join forces and launch some actions that can help mobilize people around the world to understand the problem and join together in accelerating its solution.

Videos from the participants are being posted here, along with some photos here.

THE COMMUNIQUE

The communiqué that was issued after the gathering is as follows:

Reflecting on leadership in organizations today, we find ourselves in a bit of a mess. We see reliance on linear, mechanistic thinking, companies focusing more on stock price than delighting customers, and knowledge workers whose voices are ignored by the bosses who direct them. All these factors are reflected in the current economic crisis, increased inequity, bankruptcies and widespread disillusionment.

There has to be a better way.

In January 2012, a diverse group of twenty one people including senior executives, business strategists, managers, academics, and lean/agile development practitioners from four continents, met in Stoos, Switzerland. We believe that we uncovered some of the common characteristics of that better way. For example, that organizations can become learning networks of individuals creating value and that the role of leaders should include the stewardship of the living rather than the management of the machine.

Most importantly, we committed to continue our work, both in-person and online. A problem this size will require many minds and hearts. We’d love to hear your voice and your experience. Help move the conversation forward by joining our LinkedIn Group and on twitter with hashtag #stoos.

The fact that the participants were able to reach a common understanding of both the problem and the desired outcome enables the group to start assessing what is the best way of dealing with “the problem” so as to lead to “the outcome”.

In assessing the gathering, it is important to note what was accomplished and what wasn’t even attempted. Some comparisons with analogous efforts can be helpful.

THE AGILE MANIFESTO 2001

In 2001, seventeen software developers met in Snowbird and came up with the Agile Manifesto. The Manifesto was published on a website and has helped spark a world-wide transformation of the way that software is developed.

The Agile group at Snowbird in 2001 came up with a simple definition of the problem in four dimensions: “processes and tools”, “comprehensive documentation”, “contract negotiation” and “following a plan”

It also identified a solution in four dimensions: “Individuals and interactions”, “working software”, “customer collaboration” and “responding to change”. It was accompanied by a page of twelve supporting principles.

The Manifesto was evocative and ambiguous and deliberately low in specific content.

In particular, in the published outcome, no attempt was made to evaluate different approaches in getting from the problem to the solution. No mention was made of the content of XP, Scrum, Crystal, Lean or Kanban or any of the other approaches that were current at the time. Instead the Manifesto focused on what the participants could all agree on.

Over the course of the ensuing decade, some of those specific approaches flourished more than others. But he movement as a whole prospered greatly because all of the proponents saw themselves as part of “the Agile movement”, with a common view of the problem and a common view of the desirable outcome.

It is clear in retrospect that if the Snowbird group had attempted to flesh out the content of the Manifesto, stating how to get from the problem to the solution, then the Agile movement could have degenerated into an even worse series of faction fights than have actually occurred, e.g. between Scrum and Kanban. The Agile movement prospered largely because the participants agreed at a high level on “the problem” and “the desired outcome” and let experience sort out the merits of the different approaches towards getting from “the problem” to “the desired outcome”.

One lesson from the experience is that “less is (often) more”. Succinct, evocative, albeit ambiguous, statements of the problem and the desired outcome may move people far more than hundreds of pages of content.

OTHER MANAGEMENT GATHERINGS

Other management gatherings with a similar spirit have tended to be less successful. At some of these gatherings, the participants came to the meeting with the goal of having “their” approach endorsed as the right way to reform management. For some of the participants, it was “my way or the highway”. As a result, the meetings often had difficulty in agreeing on anything concrete. There would often be no involvement of outsiders in preparing the meeting and no declaration or announcement or website created at the end of the meeting.

These meetings sometimes planted seeds for change that have since become fruitful. However the meetings in themselves didn’t mobilize discernible movements resulting in joint effort for change, in a way that is comparable to the Agile Manifesto.

One lesson from these experiences is that attempting to come to closure on the detailed content of change at such an event may be counterproductive. Another lesson is that the dissemination of the outcome of the meeting can be important in mobilizing wider support for the ideas discussed at the meeting.

THE STOOS GATHERING: AN EMPHASIS ON LISTENING

Mindful of these experiences, the Stoos gathering modeled itself in some ways on the Snowbird model, without however aspiring to come up with a new management manifesto.

In effect, the group put a great deal of emphasis on listening to different viewpoints and approaches that the cognitively diverse participants brought to the gathering, as well as those of others not present. Very little time was spent discussing which approach might be “best”. More time was spent on seeking to understand.

DEFINING THE PROBLEM

The group was very mindful of Einstein’s dictum that to solve a complex problem, one needs to spend about ten times more effort on understanding the problem than on coming up solutions. The group thus focused a great deal on understanding the many facets of “the problem”. It came up with a mind-map to depict our common understanding.

The statement of the problem is detailed because the problem is in reality very complex. Given the long and checkered history of management reform over the last century, in which even successful experiments don’t endure for long, the group felt that understanding the complexity and the multiple dimensions of the problem was key to making faster and more enduring progress in future.

The mind-map depicts around fifty elements that have led to the current organizational dysfunction, ranging from the root causes such as maximizing shareholder value as the goal of the firm and mechanistic leadership models, on through intermediate causes and ultimately to the current symptoms and consequences of those elements: reduced returns for shareholders, dispirited workers and frustrated customers.

We believe that the picture of the problem that was developed helps show, among other things, why some proposed methods of improving organizations have been less enduring than expected.

THE DESIRED OUTCOME

The groups also formulated “the desired outcome” in the transformation of organizations that all the participants, despite their different viewpoints, were willing to embrace. The formulation that the group adopted is that organizations need to become “learning networks of diverse individuals that create value.” Each of the words in the formulation is rich in import:

“value“: these are organizations that create net value for their customers, shareholders and other stakeholders.

The group recognized that this formulation is, like the Agile Manifesto, evocative and general, rather than detailed and measurable. The group saw this as a strength, not a weakness, given the goal of mobilizing large numbers of people.

Although the group comprised thought leaders who had proposed or supported different approaches for getting from “the problem” to the “the desired outcome,” such as radical management, management 2.0, management 3.0, beyond budgeting, shared value, wiki-management, Lean, Scrum, Kanban and so on, the group spent very little time discussing the pros and cons of these specific approaches. A summary and comparison of these different approaches was prepared prior to the meeting but the meeting spent practically no time discussing it. The group (I think rightly) spent most of its time on clarifying the problem and the desired outcome.

MOBILIZING A MOVEMENT FOR CHANGE

The group was conscious that very large numbers of people would need to be involved in a global movement to transform management. Disseminating the ideas of the gathering was therefore a central part of the preparation for, and the sequel to, the gathering. The sponsors announced the Stoos gathering publicly in advance of its occurrence and actively sought ideas to be incorporated in the group’s work. Many ideas were received and all were shared with all participants.

Once the meeting was completed, the results were disseminated in the communiqué shown above, posted on a website, www.StoosNetwork.org and transmitted on Twitter with the hashtag #stoos. Anyone can join the LinkedIn discussion group on the website and so far over 350 individuals have joined. Lively discussions are already taking place.

OUTSIDER ANGST ABOUT THE GATHERING

At the outset, the four sponsors of the gathering—Jurgen Appelo, Franz Roosli, Peter Stevens and myself—didn’t know who might come. Indeed we wondered whether anyone would be willing to travel half way around the world on short notice at a time when many people were on vacation with their families. In the event, we got a strong response to our invitation and we soon had a gathering of twenty-one thought leaders from four continents.

Our success in mobilizing interest in the gathering soon led to requests from many others to attend. When this proved impractical, interest on Twitter turned towards concern such as how were the participants to the gathering chosen, how representative were they, how would the work of the group proceed, what would be the outcome and so on.

Some of these concerns related to a worry that the group would make some pronouncement in favor of one particular approach to management over others. The group has done its best to make clear that the participants in fact spent hardly any time at all on comparing the pros and cons of different approaches and came to no such conclusion.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The main outcomes of the meeting thus are:

the participants came to a common understanding of “the problem”

the participants came to a common understanding of “the desired outcome” for oganizations

the participants left for a future time evaluations of the best ways of getting from “the problem” to “the desired outcome.”

The first steps have been taken to disseminate the outcome of the gathering and engage in conversation with all those interested in transforming organizations.

While some have questioned whether this amounts to much progress, we believe that having a common understanding as to what is the problem and what is the desired outcome is in fact a huge step forward.

Based on our shared viewpoint, we have now invited anyone in the world who is interested in these issues to join us and help in exploring different approaches for dealing with the problem and achieving the desired outcome. Everyone can develop avenues for creating and disseminating better ways to proceed.

We also plan further gatherings with wider participation to move the agenda forward. These plans will be communicated on the www.StoosNetwork.com website and the associated LinkedIn group.

Please join us! Help accelerate the tipping point for organizations and so change the world!

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I love your point of “Succinct, evocative, albeit ambiguous, statements of the problem and the desired outcome may move people far more than hundreds of pages of content.”

For me, it has echoes of the practice in scrum of using Stories to describe the work product, rather than a lengthy requirements document. Communications Science teaches that words *transmit* only about 7% of the information available; vocal qualities *transmit* about 35%; subtle physiological factors (a simplification is body language) *transmits* about 55% of the information. And that’s before transmission-loss errors! Is it any wonder that if we’re relying on documents to convey information that we miss a bunch of what’s really desired?

And, yes, showing up really is over half the answer.

The gang at Agile Learning Labs here in the Bay Area are often saying that, in scrum, “Stories are a ticket to a conversation.” It’s in the conversation between the product owner and the team that subtle, and sometimes critical, details come out.

What the team that convened at Stoos has achieved by leaning to ‘less is more’ over a document is a conversation. Bravo! Just run the numbers from Communications Science – By starting a conversation, y’all’ve likely increased the actual information *transmitted* by a factor of 5x!

I applaud this outcome, and am an eager & willing observer and aspiring participant in the ensuing conversation.

Thanks for your comment with which I fully agree. This is about stories that begin productive conversations. Obviously we are hoping that this many will participate in this conversations and that the results will be productive for many people around the world.

With Agile manifesto – you are on tripping point, not tipping point. Agile is a reductionist view, it is afflicted by Cartesian, which has been one of the causes for Gaussian behavior resulting in extreme linearization.

Get your act together, empirical understanding need not necessarily mean logic. Such superficial understanding creates cognitive dissonance. Cognitive correction is critical when dealing with massive complexity where macro and micro behaviors cannot be easily be reconciled. This has been the challenge for unified theory in physics, still remaining unresolved. The probabilistic determinism and the random.

Agile, something reduced to a linear micro process, is a certain poison for large systemic complexities and it creates cognitive dissonance.

Steve – Thank you for your reply. At this time, given all the extensive modeling, large program studies for risk mitigation, etc tells me Agile is fragile for large systemic concerns.

Anyway, I loved your article on demise of Michael Porter’s ideas on Darwinian strategy for corporates. In my mind, there is more truth is pursuing concepts around generative vs adaptive, instead of constructs around Agile, which anyway is a derivative around RUP. Lot of discussion happened with also Jacobson involved along with Scott Ambler. This discussion dates back 10 years. To me in Agile there is no systemic transformative strength, no theories, no models, nothing that scales to the order of complexities at marco level. So, is its futility as a method or a process or whatever.

With this said, you ideas around emphasis on innovation in the intrinsic design is imperative; this contrasts with Porter’s Darwinian adaptive. Industry began as a designer, the strength is in sustaining existence in the society / world meaningfully. The strategy is in “design”, being design minded. Like it is happening in biologic. This idea incorporating generative to my mind is very powerful. Below, is an article – where I use and build upon the basis that you discuss in the demise of Porter’s strategy model.